Was surprised to read (in "Breakout Nations" by Ruchir Sharma)that polls show Chinese much less likely than any other nationality to believe that China is destined to be the No. 1 economy.

And that 52% of Americans identified China as the leading economy while only 32% cited USA's.

IHO democratic vs authoritarian sysems might not matter, but more the motivation and vision of its leaders...rise of family owned and patriarchal companies like Hyundai/Samsung lend effectiveness of the autocratic system.

If I read the temper of our people correctly, we now realize as we have never realized before our interdependence on each other; that we can not merely take but we must give as well; that if we are to go forward, we must move as a trained and loyal army willing to sacrifice for the good of a common discipline, because without such discipline no progress is made, no leadership becomes effective. We are, I know, ready and willing to submit our lives and property to such discipline, because it makes possible a leadership which aims at a larger good. This I propose to offer, pledging that the larger purposes will bind upon us all as a sacred obligation with a unity of duty hitherto evoked only in time of armed strife.

With this pledge taken, I assume unhesitatingly the leadership of this great army of our people dedicated to a disciplined attack upon our common problems.

The worst fear of the Chinese government (present and future) is the continual appreciation of the Chinese currency. All other problems are not as pressing anjd can be tackled at leisure.
The most important task of the Chinese government is therefore to reverse the appreciating trend of the Chinese Yuan. In order to do that, it must take complete control of the exchange rate of its currency as it used to in the past. Once it has complete control over the exchange rate of its currency, it must them let it depreciate gradually until it reaches the same level as in 2005. The Chinese economy will then regain its vigour.
China must not fear that the US labels it a currency manipulator because first, the US is the greatest currency manipulator and it is used to calling other countries all sorts of names, which mean nothing.
China must not fear also that the US imposes prohibitive tariffs because these will be less damaging to the Chinese economy than an overvalued Yuan.
Let the western countries spend their time and energy in useless squabblings, on the merits and deficiencies of democracy and let them sprnd all their money on consumption until their economies are in shambles and their countries disintegrate as a result of their economies being in shambles.
China must not repeat the mistake made by Japan in the 1980s. It must not, like Japan, let its currency appreciates to the point that it becomes overvalued because an overvalued currency will stall the Chinese economy like the Japanese economy has been stalled since the early 1990s.

I don't think Japan, Vietnam, Taiwan, Philipine and S Korea would be as impressed as you are with the lack of China outward aggression! That's why these is an arm race now in Asia and most of the Asian countries are now leaning towards the US rather aligning with China!

I know I know, Team China will attack me saying that all these disputes are caused by other countries aggression and all those Islands are part of China and its all of the grand plan by the US!

I'm not going to attack you because that for one would be juvenile and immature for simply stating your OPINION. But I believe your opinion is slightly misinformed. Did you know that Japan also has land disputes with virtually all its neighbors? Have you actually looked at Vietnam's and The Philippines claims in the South China Sea? If you have you would understand that their claims are nearly if not equally absurd. China IS to blame but it takes two to tango and neither side is making concessions in their claims. But China's opponents (Vietnam, Philippines, South Korea, Singapore etc) are unable to compete militarily, so they must turn to an external power for help: the US. Hence the "pivot" in the US defense posture, to put 60% of the US navy into the South China Sea by 2020. It is a move out of desperation rather than choice. The situation a little more complex then China=Bad Guy ~ Everyone Else=Good Guy

Well, I am glad that there are no more "juvenile and immature" attacks for posting China critical postings which I have experienced in the past from China cyber troopers!

Back to your point of me being misinformed, I would just like to remind Chinese reader that just 10 years ago, China was winning hearts and minds in many Asian countries, incl many countries which you have now listed as "China opponents"! USA was the devil then, especially after the Iraq war! As I remember it, China diplomats were doing a great job and the Chinese government then took conciliatory attitude towards all contagious issues, including disputed areas! Terms like "setting aside differences" and "joint development" were often advertised! However, the goodwill and trust has evaporated over the past 10 years! What do you think happened?

I think the next Chinese administration would do well to take an honest evaluation of what happened INTERNALLY rather than blame everything on its increasing new found enemies!

Right. The Tibetans will tell you just how much of a "lack of aggression" China has shown them.

It is absolutely absurd to expect that a nation that suppresses its citizens so brutally will treat outsiders in a better way. The only repressive nations that do that are the ones that don't have the military wherewithal to attack their neighbors.

But a country that is

A. Brutal to its own people

B. Militarily dominant

will show its true colors.

I'll grant your point if you can name us 3 nations in the last century that were brutal to their people and militarily very strong but remained peaceful and nice to their neighbors. I of course can name plenty of the other kind starting with Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia and Iraq. In today's day and time - North Korea.

If you expect what history has taught us to be the exception, if not impossible, you also probably expect to win the lottery every time you buy it.

Right. The Tibetans will tell you just how much of a "lack of aggression" China has shown them.
********************************
You are just a tool of "free" media and politicians if you think the issue in Tibet is about human right.(assume you are not a Tibetan.)

Fun, you need to educate yourself more. China claimed all those isles in the 1940's in the "LAST CENTURY" during the "Republic of China" period who are now in Taiwan, and Taiwan is also claiming the exact isles.
The 'New' China (PRC) only inherits what the ROC claimed in the first place.

Could you please provide me with a link or some reference supporting your contention that "China claimed all those isles in the 1940's"

It's not that I don't believe you, it's just that I am a seeker after the truth, and find supporting evidence helps in that regard.

Regarding "There wasn't even an independent country Vietnam or Phillipines", I guess you mean that France was the colonial power in Vietnam in the 1940's as the US was in the Philippines.

I expect the 1981 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea might suggest that the exclusive economic zone that stretches 200 miles out from a country's coastline applies regardless of who happens to govern a territory at any particular moment.

By your logic, China's 200-mile EEZ still belongs to the Mongol Empire who invaded and ruled your country in the 13th century.

I'm well aware of the Nine-dash line and China's claims in the SCS. That is unless they decided to change it in the last month. My point was not to claim that China is right but rather to point out that no one is right. For instance, the Philippines and their claims run up to approximately 20-30KM short of the Malaysian coast to the South and similarly to the North in relation to Taiwan. Vietnam's claims are equal in area nearly 3 times the countries landmass and ends approximately 300 KM west of Manila. So why is it China that is being singled out? It can also be said that 5 years ago there was not nearly as much focus on China and territorial claims until the US decided to show interest in the disputed waters thus forcing China to assert its claims. The way I see it, China knows it cannot compete militarily with the US so is approaching the dispute the way a salesman would a customer. Come in high and the customer comes in low and you meet somewhere in the middle. I highly doubt China is willing to go into an all out war(that they would certainly lose)risking economic ruin. China is a changing story; it will take time to evolve and I believe economic interests will resolve these issues eventually.

It's always good to hear all opinions to have a broader perspective on an issue.

I would have to disagree with your point tho. Relations in Asia have always been tenuous. Even today feelings of resentment still reside within even the general population in China against Japan for atrocities committed during WWII. Also vice versa the Japanese fear retribution from the heinous acts inflicted upon the Chinese from an ever more powerful China. Same could be said about Vietnamese sentiment towards China quite literally from over a millennia of war with their neighbors up north. Diplomats speak for themselves not for the people but since when did we start trusting the words of a diplomat. There is still deep seeded resentment amongst Asian nations that are not as easily forgotten as one would like to think.

Your points are well made, and I agree that all contenders in the SCS need to consider their claims. These are the problematic aspects of China's behaviour as I see them:

1. At the recent ASEAN summit in Cambodia an attempt was made by the grouping to agree a protocol to govern the conduct of claimants in the SCS. China won't agree the protocol, and won't discuss the SCS with ASEAN members collectively, only bi-laterally. This looks like divide-and-rule (an old British specialty), and has raised suspicion in the region that China has no interest in a negotiated resolution to the issues.

2. In addition to claiming the area within the nine-dash line, which is way beyond China's 200-mile EEZ (even assuming China owns all island groups in the region, a big assumption), China also disputes that the international community has freedom of navigation within that area.

If this is the salesman's initial pitch (as you have suggested), it is quite extreme, and has resulted in the nations surrounding the SCS (with the exception of Laos and Cambodia) firming up military alliances with the US.

Unfortunately ASEAN concern is heightened by a history of conflict in the region, most notably the death of 70-odd Vietnamese sailors on the Paracel Islands during the China's battle to occupy them in 1974.

Fun, you are a big boy. You can google or visit Wiki, can't you? Why do you think Taiwan (Republic of China) is claiming exactly the same isles?? The Nine dots lines were drew by the then ROC minister in 1947 after the WW2.

The 200 mile EEZ is only true if there is no other sovereignty involved. By your logic, the US would own all the Caribean Islands as theirs. When other sovereignty is involved, the distance is divided into half between the two.

And no, the Mongol Empire would not claim the 200 mile EEZ because they don't have any coastlines.
And most historians believe the Yuen Dynasty was one of the CHINESE dynasties because they ruled China out of the capital of present day BEIJING. Inner Mongolia is still part of present day China and there are three times more Mongols in China than the Mongolia Repubic. Different ethnic background ruler doesn't mean it is not the same country.
Is the US part of Kenya then?

You must be reasonable Good Kop in this China team then. Whatever you argument about the long animosity between Asian countries, one can just feel the impatience of Chinese over the past few years to show its growing economy clout! I think the fox has shown its tail too early!

I love the part about "Come in high and the customer comes in low and you meet somewhere in the middle." Except that this is not a commercial negotiations! What we are talking about here is gunboat diplomacy! China is acting like a big schoolboy bully over the past 10 years: "This is mine, it belong to me. You don't like it, we have the navy to crush you!"

Finally, you asked why "China that is being singled out" now? Very simple:- the fox has just exposed its tail!

Interesting article with some fascinating details, my favourite being that Mr Xi senior wore a watch given to him by the Dalai Lama. Given the vitriol poured on the Tibetan leader by CCP supporters on these message boards, I guess China's next president is the son of a class enemy.

The world needs a strong and stable China, and I hope that's what we get in the next ten years. The increase in Cold War rhetoric in the past few years has been alarming. It is striking how many people, on Economist threads at least, believe that the the outside world, led by America, is plotting China's demise. The world has no interest in China failing.

My own belief is that the best way to stability is through rule of law, civil rights, separation of powers and a free economic playing field that doesn't favour one segment of the population over another. And no, the West is not perfect on this score!

For an example of the top being "out of control", I recommend everyone to read yesterday's New York Times report on the wealth accumulated by the family of Wen Jiabao.

My own belief is that the best way to stability is through rule of law, civil rights, separation of powers and a free economic playing field that doesn't favour one segment of the population over another.

******************************************

No offense, none of those works, because most misery in this world is caused by poverty.

For example, in America, if a person fills being suppressed by some police, he has a choice of moving to another place.

But in developing countries, most people don't have such choices. Like mine accidents in China, people will still risk their lives after democracy.

The world needs a strong and stable China, and I hope that's what we get in the next ten years. The increase in Cold War rhetoric in the past few years has been alarming. It is striking how many people, on Economist threads at least, believe that the the outside world, led by America, is plotting China's demise. The world has no interest in China failing.
----------------

It is people like you believed all your beloved USA said.
All these military exercises with Japan and others were/are not threat to any Nation, including CHina! (What a joke!)

I am telling the truth, that is why. And you are one of these trouble maker to China, and fear of China's dominant position in the future.
US claimed they welcome China's rise, but do exactly the opposite. Talking and doing is different. But you see no differernt on this because you see that is naturally so. :D

How sublime and forte is economic growth of china? is it ensuring the emancipation of toil of Chinese common people? The difference between human development and economic acceleration in China is so wide that the fragility and fathom of Chinese success could be realized well with a devastating china spring if there was no censor on media, freedom of speech.

Throw some others in, like Mexico, and Cuba doesn't look so good on the per capita GDP PPP metric:

Mexico - $ 14,800 2011 est
Puerto Rico - $ 16,300 2010 est.

Who knows, maybe the US should let any upstanding citizen from Cuba emigrate to the US, and conversely allow spring breakers, swingers, vacationers and what not stream to Cuba? In the end, could turn Cuba into a tourism colony for el norte americanos, as well as vicarious Americans (through family relations) with remittance dependence...

I agree that for China, communism was the best form of governance at the time she began it. Was there another method by which hundreds of millions would've been lifted out of poverty despite the many tragic repercussions along the way?

IMO Western democracy has not been a failure for much of the time -there is much to admire about some of their aims, not least that millions were lifted out of ignorance, poverty and given a widespread perception of self-empowerment for a long time.

The average American still lives comparatively luxuriously (because the Chinese government was unwise enough to lend them so much, which probably can't ever be paid back); it'll be the responsible low-waged Chinese worker financing such who will end up being screwed.

When I said "Neighorhood", I was referring to the Caribean countries, US not included.

Jamaica, Dominican Rep, Puerto Rico, and especially Haiti are not richer than the Cubans even their GDP is higher. Because Cuba is a Socialist country, wealth is more evenly distributed. The "Average" citizens are better off.

I really dont like what u are trying to promote here. Believe the last thing u want to do is to try to export the current Chinese system. We Chinese people need to focus on our own problems and work hard to make further progress. We may offer our helps around the world as to improve people's lives. When it comes to ideology and political system in other countries, we should let their own people to decide.

I really dont like what u are trying to promote here. Believe the last thing u want to do is to try to export the current Chinese system. We Chinese people need to focus on our own problems and work hard to make further progress. We may offer our helps around the world as to improve people's lives. When it comes to ideology and political system in other countries, we should let their own people to decide.

Hmm, it sounds like the Economist wants Mr. Xi to become the Gorbachev of China. The same prescription did not work out very well for the Soviet Union, which promptly collapsed with astounding speed. Perhaps the Economist should have elaborated a bit as to why the same medicine would work better this time.

China will be a very interesting country to watch over the next 10 years. I hope the liberals will take the upper hand so China can develop peacefully and with more equality and one day follow little brother Taiwan on the way to democracy.

In addition to economic growth, China should return to its meritocratic and egalitarian roots by cracking down on crony capitalism and special interests and addressing the growing rift between the rich and poor (China's gini coefficient is higher than the U.S.'s, which is already an unequal society; so much for communism!)

At the same time, China should try its best to be a responsible international actor and push the U.S. to cooperate on climate change together. It should call for imposing only targeted sanctions on the likes of Iran and North Korea, where broad sanctions are hurting the people rather than the leadership, but remain committed to nuclear nonproliferation; it should cooperate with the U.S. on major foreign policy issues where interests such as stability and development align.

China will have a rocky road for the next decade. The entire world should be hoping for its success.

So are you implying that short term, myopic behaviors doesn't occur in other forms of governance, or societies, or spheres of civil society?

Thinking of power struggles, could see narrow mindedness and corruption crop up in all kinds of circumstances over the ages.

Think of the corruption that bloomed under the last years of the Qianlong emperor of the Qing dynasty, or the fratricidal behaviors of the Roman military generals during the second and third centuries.

Or the counterproductive purges of communists knocking off followers by the bushel load, say under Stalin or 1940s Yenan, or the cultural revolution for China overall.

In many of those cases, myopia, corruption and caprice was exacerbated by the lack of transparency or accountability or balance, leading to vastly worse problems, instability and violence.

Xi Jinping has been understudying Hu Jintao and Wen Jiabao for the past five years. His promotion to leader of the country is analogous to the promotion of the deputy CEO to CEO in a large corporation.
Deng Xiaoping pointed out that one should cross the river feeling the stones. Xi will find the stones under his feet will be very different from those felt by his predecessors and there is high expectation that he and his team would find new solutions to new challenges and problems confronting a nation of 1.3 billion people.
It is interesting to note that the US will elect a president on November 6. The latest polls indicate that the election could be very close. Should Romney win, he should thank Bush for fouling up the economy so badly that it was impossible for Obama to fix in four short years. This is the reality of the American system : the greater the screw up, the larger the chances of returning to power in four years' time. What a contrast with the Chinese system ! Makes you think doesn't it ?

"democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried" - Winston Churchill
.
The problem with autocracy is that if a bad person gains power (or a good leader turns bad) they cannot be removed.
.
Since "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" electorates must be empowered to change their leaders regularly.
.
In China leaders choose themselves behind closed doors: an opaque procedure that owes nothing to democracy.
.
As the Chinese people become richer they will demand the right to choose their leaders.
.
Whether the princelings have the courage and the wisdom to allow that is doubtful.
.
But one thing is certain: the emotions that led to Tiananmen Square have not gone away, and it is only a matter of time before the people of China win their freedom.

"democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried" - Winston Churchill

I am not sure what Churchill was referring to was the " 21st Liberal Democracy" we have today. When Churchill said of the Democracy, it was bascially for the elite white men. It wasn't until the post 1965 Civil Movement that univeral suffrage started to gradually happen. Minorities weren't allowed to vote before the 1950.

Liberal Democracy will eventually lead to collasped economies if they are not lucky enough to be blessed with hugh natual resources Greece and Portugal are couple examples.

I am not saying dictatorship is a better form of governance, but what Churchill said may not be true anymore in the 21st century. There will be better enhanced form of governance in the coming future. His "except all the other" was only up to the 1950s.

"what Churchill said may not be true anymore in the 21st century. There will be better enhanced form of governance in the coming future"

Can you give an example of what that 'enhanced' form of government might look like?

"Liberal Democracy will eventually lead to collasped economies if they are not lucky enough to be blessed with hugh natual resources Greece and Portugal are couple examples"

I cannot see the logic in that statement. Why will liberal democracy lead to collapsed economies, any more than totalitarian ones will? Russia in 1989 suggests the opposite is true, and I suspect China will shortly do the same.

The aphorism "power corrupts,and absolute power corrupts absolutely" appears to be true, given our human nature, and our experience of entrenched elites.

As yet, there is no better way of removing despots than enabling the people to vote them out: democracy.

Pre-requisites for democracy are freedom of speech and the media, an independent judiciary, trial by jury, right of assembly.

Democracy is very simple in concept, less simple to implement in practice, because of the mendacity of our species.

I cannot see the logic in that statement. Why will liberal democracy lead to collapsed economies
.
***************************************
It paralyzes government. last 25 years was saved by scientific breakthrough.
.
Democracy, simply speaking, is majority rule, minority must respect the decisions of majority. Human right means that minority don’t have to be submissive to majority. They contradict to each other. So for them to coexist, there must be compromises, that is almost impossible unless the people are worry-free and government is rich. If there is no compromise, government will fail to “deliver”.
.
So this paradox explain to phenomena : one, democracy usually carry out much better in developed countries than in developing country; two, democracy (and human right) doesn’t deliver.

I believe Churchill said that quote in 1947, after WWII, when many states were on very shaky foundations (Czechslovak democracy would get overthrown by a communist coup the following year).
`
And after witnessing democracies getting undermined and/or overthrown on multiple fronts in the interwar period, with assaults coming from various extremist movements like fascism, communism, Nazism.
`
The types of challenges and outright disasters he witnessed far overshadow problems were are dealing with today, to put things into perspective.
`
Like two world wars and massive economic dislocation.

You really need to read more history. What has British democracy have to do with British democracy. Universal suffrage was already in place in the UK by 1928 (for women), regardless of race. Switzerland had male universal suffrage with no property requirements since 1848.

Single party dictatorships (or oligarchies) don't last long, at least not as long as democracies or monarchies. How long did triumvirate rule in Rome?

I was replying to Fun with Friut about Democracy in general term and I pointed out US democracy with the 'Civil right movement'.
Univerasl Suffrage wasn't real if the minorities were not included. As I said, It was for the white Men (women).

I didn't say one party dictatorship is better. I said political systems need to be improved and it is in progross. Better system will appear in the future. Liberal Democracy is not the "final" form.

Liberal Democracy has only be around for about half a century and it is already running into major problems, such as welfare states and hindering decision making at critical times.

In the scope of human history, democracy is surprising short.
If you take civilization to be 5,000 years old (it's arguable much longer), then true democracy has only been in effect for a short time, say less than 3% of that entire time.

Even in Athenian Democracy (the birth place of democracy), it wasn't even real democracy since at least 1/3 of all Athenians were slaves.

I'd say the vast majority of the world was non-democratic for most of their entire history.

Autocracy has survived for say thousands of years versus maybe 150 years of true democratic ideas (and liberal democracy much shorter)

I'd say democratic ideas weren't really even in fashion until the Anglos really felt heat from the Germans. When the British Empire has still hovering over the world, it didn't really care about other people's sovereignty but after WWII, when it seemed that the German might make the British taste their own medicine of being under someones else's rule (had the Germans won the war) did the British change their tone.

Greece and Portugal are semi-sovereign entities that do not control their own currencies. They are best compared to US States like California or Illinois, with an EU Federal Government that is much less functional than in the USA. Compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges. One should never compare fully sovereign countries to a mere EU State.

"When the British Empire has still hovering over the world, it didn't really care about other people's sovereignty"

Generally speaking, I agree.

"When it seemed that the German might make the British taste their own medicine of being under someones else's rule (had the Germans won the war) did the British change their tone"

Universal enfanchisement came to Britain in 1928 when the Britiah empire was at it's greatest extent: Britain (and her allies) had recently won the first world war, and at that point there was no threat from Germany.

You might remember 'The Emergency' in Malaysia, in which British colonial troops successfully put down a 'communist' uprising (not sure if it was actually communist, or just communist in name). That was in the 1950's, way after Hitler had been defeated.

So your point does not stand up when applied to the Britain's own people, although I concede that the picture was different in the colonies.

Britain withdrawing from empire had to do with being broke after 1945 coupled with an understanding amongst British people that if they had lost 3 million dead defeating an evil regime, that the colonies should have their freedom too.

This is why Winston Churchill's conservative government was voted out of office in 1945 even though he had led the country to victory: it was the beginning of the post-war socialist period in Britain.

The fundamental flaw with unelected oligarchies is division of power, that is why they don't last long, not as long as democracy (in what ever form) and monarchies. When was the last time you heard of "great triumvirate". Its dangerous to lump oligarchies like the CPC with monarchies.

If the system of shared ruled among council of men, was so good, then why didn't the Chinese adopt it much early. They had a Emperor, and the bureaucracy was chosen to serve him. Because unelected oligarchies like the CPC, have a tendency in a short period of time collapse toward admist rivalry and division. When was the last time you say a company with multiple CEO's.

So if minorities couldn't vote, then how the hell could he have become MP? When did the West become a democracy, when minorities where allowed to vote, when when were allowed to vote, or universal male suffrage was implemented. Then by your definition, South Korea is not a democracy, because ethnic Chinese resident in Korea (even if they are born there) are not allowed to vote.

As for the United States, Black were allowed to vote, in the Northern states they had no problem in voting. In the South, after Reconstruction, they increasingly faced Jim Crow laws that made it almost impossible for them to vote. It was not race based, but they you had to pay polls taxes etc. But it also restricted the ability of poor whites to vote also.

I think liberal democracy really starts at about the time when they gave all men the right to vote regardless of income. It starts one group, men earned the right to vote, merely for a man. Which for most countries in Europe after the World War I. This is the period when universal entitlements start springing up.

The problem with the welfare state, is not as you think with giving money to the poor or handicap people, governments have been doing that for thousand of years. Welfare to single mother's, money to the poor, disability payments only make up a small portion of the burden of the welfare state. Sadly its the part that people attack.

What cripples the Welfare state are universal entitlements, like universal health insurance, government pensions, child benefits regardless of income etc. Universal health insurance is the one entitlement program that hogs the bulk of social spending in Western countries.

Secondly, in third world countries, including China and India, they have their own entitlement spending, they call them price subsidies. But no one talks about them. Indonesia spends 11% of its Government budget on fuel subsidies (or 1.5 of its GDP). India spends 11% of its GDP on subsidies. Malaysia spends 5% of its GDP on subsidies (food, gas etc). China about 1-2%. Iran 10% of its GDP on subsidies. In contrast, the US spends about 3-4% of its GDP on welfare spending (food stamps etc).

Again like entitlements in the West, it has the potential to cripple a country, even dictatorships. Suharto fell in 1998, because he did not have the political capital to reduce the fu8el subsidies. The IMF made it a condition that he reduce the fuel subsidies or no IMF funding, when he did there were demonstrations etc, and eventually his regime collapsed. Was the IMF being a dick, no, fuel subsidies benefit the middle class the most. Since Indonesia became a democracy, they have managed to reduce the fuel subsidies twice. The Indonesian government spends more on fuel subsidies than it does on health care. Suharto was no push over, he killed 1/2 million people to get into power.

I disagree with the adage that people bandied around that Dictatorships can make the tough choices and democracies can't, it really depends. I was in Germany during 2003-2005, it was a really tough time in Germany. The Economy was horrible, Government was cutting back etc. The Germans from 2002-2007 restructured their economy, unions were told to cut wages, they cut welfare spending etc.

Despite what many people think, Germany is not a worker's paradise. A worker in Germany in theory can make less someone in Shenzhen, is about $250. You know what the minimum wage is in Germany, they don't have a national minimum wage.

"democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried" - Winston Churchill"

It is a pity that Winston Churchill died too early to see the success of the Chinese form of government. This Government has managed to lift 500 million people out of poverty in 30 years which is unprecedented in human history. Despite this the Chinese Government still admits that its system is imperfect and continuous reform is necessary in tandem with a changing internal and external environment. In contrast, Western countries think their democratic form of government is perfect and must be imposed on other countries. They must realize that there is no political system that fits all and each country must choose their own unique system.

You say:
.
"Western countries think their democratic form of government is perfect and must be imposed on other countries"
.
Immediately after a famous quote from Winston Churchill in which he explicity says democracy isn't perfect.
.
Which makes nonsense of your entire post.

Please explain why Western countries particularly the US and Britain, impose their own system of government on so many countries after WWII. Also explain why US politicians insist that their founding fathers are so wise that their constitution requires no change.

Their action suggests that they don't agree with Churchill. Or are they hypocrites ?

Why is it a problem to look at the US? The US is five times bigger than Britian and considered to be the leader of the so-called "Western/Democratic world", isn't it? (please don't tell me India is bigger). Why would I want to use Britian as example, which is no.5, if that? You really believe an Indian had the same rights and opportunities as a white Brit before the 50's?

If the Poll Tax in the US was imposed to block adult citizens to vote, it is NOT univerial suffrage.

When I said Lib. Demo. will lead to welfare state, I was thinking more of the systematic side of it, not much on the personal entitlement or subsidies. Cuba as a third world country offer more benefits, relatively speaking to its citizens.
Lib. Demo. encourages favors to voters so that Politicans can win the elections. This would mean, gradually, more benefits and favors will be offered to voters in each election. Eventually it comes the point the tax revenue can no longer support the benefits. Since politicans will end their turns in ~4 years, they are not hesitate to borrow funding for the benefits. Someone else will pick up the tag later. Look at the PIIGS countries or even the US where there is not hugh surplus of natural resources, unlike Canada or Austrilia.

When it comes to decision making, Lib. Demo. partian politics hinder effective decisions. The opposition will try blocking polices that may improve the performance of the ruling party, quite often in the last year, so that the ruling party would not win the next election. Decisions are made as per party advantage instead of the good of the citizens.

The major problem with single party system is that there are no accountability to the general public, but this system offers training, long ones, on the job. Incompetent ones would not make it to the top positions.

I'll respond with the UK and the US seperately, because they are very different:
.
1. UK: did not (could not) impose anything on anybody after WW2. In the period between 1950 and 1970 Britain was divesting itself of empire as quickly as possible, because it could no longer afford to police the empire and it was no longer morally acceptable to do so.
.
The UK of 1950 was a very different country to that of 1850. The actions during the Malaya 'Emergency' 1959-69 and the Mao Mao Rebellion in Kenya were an attempt to stabilize those countries prior to independence (which came within 10 years in both cases)
.
In the pre-war period, yes, the British did impose their legal and civil systems on their colonies, but some suggest that these were a benefit after independence: the railway system in India and the judicial system in Singapore come to mind. I have personally spoken to Indians of a certain age who have told me that India's experience under the Raj was not wholly negative.
.
As an Indian, I do not seek to justify or excuse Britain's former empire, I believe most British people are embarrassed by it now, but the empire was 'of it's time', and Britain is now just a meduim-sized European country, and seems quite comfortable with that status.
.
2. US: Yes, the US has (and does) try to "make the world safe for democracy", because (until recently) they were the global hegemon and could afford to do so. Assasination attempts on Castro and invasions of Cuba, Grenada, Panama and Iraq come to mind.
.
And the US has been accused of supporting questionable regimes on the basis that "my enemy's enemy is my friend" (eg. Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia etc), and many liberals in the US find their county's foreign policy immoral.
.
But US hegemony is being actively contested in South and East Asia by a rising China, so it is possible that it is now China's turn to "impose their own system of government" on others (although historically China seems to prefer tributary rather than military dominance, Tibet and Senkaku notwithstanding).
.
The fact that all ASEAN countries (save Laos and Cambodia) are 'cozying up' to the US tells you who ASEAN prefer as the regional hegemon.

Democracy is of course good. However, there are many kind of 'democracies'. The current liberal 'democray' in the western is certainly not the best one. Go and ask the neo-cons in US. I'm sure they will give u a good lesson on this.

There are always going to be restrictions on voting. Age limits, criminal record etc. To be Liberal Democracy as we know it today starts with the period after WWI, not in the 1960s. At least in the Europe, that is when the vast majority of social programmes came about just after WWI or WWII. NHS was instituted in late 1940s.

To be frank the talk of mechanism of liberal democracy is really nonsense. I know how it works. But I have seen dictatorships pumps money into price subsidies, that I really I am numb to the difference. Before Saudi Arabia, oil is cheaper than water. Egypt (dictatorship) had bread subsidies, even though it wa using hard currency to import wheat. What is the difference? Because if the mobs are not happy, you could lose your life or end up in jail. They are all buying support one way or the other.

Getting back to China, what is China government deficit, about 60-70% (including local government). Government's share of GDP is about 27-30%. It looks OK by Western standards. But how does it compare with Taiwan, a democracy. Taiwan's deficit is about 35% of GDP, Government share of GDP is about 18%. This is despite the fact that Taiwan's population is older than China's. Why haven't the Taiwanese voted for lavish welfare spending? That is truly a mystery.

China implements populist policies too, you just don't notice it. It too has prices subsidies, although not alot. Take for example, in 2004 they abolished the agricultural tax, hoping that it would win support of the farmers, and also based on the argument that it did not generate alot of revenue. The agricultural tax has been around for 2000 years in China. What happened after that? A very rapid increase in the number of land seizures, as local government tried to cover revenues through land sales. You could argue its the right thing, but to me its not good policy, and it smacks of being populist.

You still haven't made a convincing case that single one party dictatorships promote better people, because incompetent ones wouldn't make it to the top. Well I guess you didn't read about Vietnam

Incompetent ones, don't make it to top positions? How do you know? Have you ever worked in a government civil service in a one party dictatorship? I have. All the civil servants had to be members of the ruling party. I was a Consultant in the Department of Public Works in Indonesia in the early 1990s. It was one of the better Departments to work, because they actually did things. They got the graduates from the best universities in Indonesia. Under Suharto, most of his Cabinet ministers were technocrats - engineers, economist, agronomist etc. Actually its even more technocratic than China's was in the early 1990s. For example, Bo Xilai was Commerce Minister, even though he did not have a Economics/Finance background. Under Suharto, not a chance, Suharto would have picked an Economist/Finance person with a Masters/PhD.

I have seen way to many talent engineers with Masters/PhD during the time there, that got shifted to dead end jobs, because of having different religion, suspected political orientation, showing insufficient loyalty etc.

Unlike you I don't believe any bureaucracy in this day and age gets the smartest / best people, particularly in a country like China where there are alot of opportunities in the private sector (particularly working for Investment Banks etc). Being a government civil servant is secure, but also risky. There is no guarantee that you will get a good "dirty water" position from the start.

China's achieves high economic growth, because departments that focus on Economic growth (plus family planning) get the best people, not necessarily the cleanest. Furthermore, county Chiefs / township chiefs are measured largely on two criteria 1) Economist Growth 2) Family Planning. Most of the departments not dealing with this stuff have alot less prestige, particularly ones like record keeping. That is why none of China's leader trust any of the Government GDP figures, because those doing the work are dregs of China's bureaucracy. In Indonesia, its most likely more balanced (talent for good or bad is more spread out). In a way the Chinese bureaucracy use the same tactics they used in the Korean War, concentrate a whole bunch of resources onto something, leaving other areas exposed or weak.

I used to work on World Bank Projects, and read alot of reports on Local Government / Local Finances in various developing countries. Except for a concentration of resources, China's bureaucracy is not that much different than those found in say Thailand/Malaysia in terms of capability.

Are you saying the restrictions on voting based on Age or Crimial record is the same as race, gender, social status, or wealth? I wouldn't want a 10 yrs old to decide on my leaders, would you?

You are saying Liberal Democracy is the same as dictorship? Cuba gives more subsides to the citizens than most of its neighbours. But Haiti is a democracy. Again, giving benefits and subsides is not Lib. Democracy.

Taiwan just started Lib. Demo. in the 1990's. Just wait couple more decades.

Someone who has been on the job and worked his way up the ladder will definitely be more competent than a boxer who gets his job from winning a election, relatively speaking. This is just common sense.

"You are saying Liberal Democracy is the same as dictorship? Cuba gives more subsides to the citizens than most of its neighbours. But Haiti is a democracy. Again, giving benefits and subsides is not Lib. Democracy."

What I am saying is dictatorships can also spend alot of money to win support - subsidies, welfare etc. A country does not have to be a liberal democracy to do that.

"Taiwan just started Lib. Demo. in the 1990's. Just wait couple more decades."

If they want to have the level of welfare spending like a Liberal Democracy, just copy Beijing. The reason why Liberal democracies are having problems, is not because they are liberal democracies, is because people vote in programmes they can't afford. But China has those same social programmes in some of their major cities, without even voting for them. If you have a Beijing Hukuo, you get unemployment insurance, health insurance, pensions access to subsidize housing etc. The black market rate for a Beijing Hukuo is US$ 80,000. If everyone in China was to have even 50% of the benefits enjoyed by Beijingers, the state's role in the Chinese's economy would be as high as the US. China already has the rope to hang herself with, she does not need the West.

As for the boxer, it depends who the boxer is and how good he is. If its Vitali Klitschko, maybe.

There is a downside to people who have worked their way up in a bureaucracy, they have a narrow way of thinking, developing bad habits and lack a broader perspective. I can give examples, but since you don't really read them, I will stick to "commonsense" what ever that means. In government bureaucracy, commonsense if often oxymoron.

Take for example, Singapore, most of their Minister's enter politics in their late 30 to early 40s. They do a 1-2 terms as MP, if they are good they become Ministers. Many of them have no civil service experience, some of them are doctors, managers, military men (just like in Israel), accountants. Singapore has a good mix.

"When I said Lib. Demo. will lead to welfare state, I was thinking more of the systematic side of it, not much on the personal entitlement or subsidies. Cuba as a third world country offer more benefits, relatively speaking to its citizens.
Lib. Demo. encourages favors to voters so that Politicans can win the elections. This would mean, gradually, more benefits and favors will be offered to voters in each election. Eventually it comes the point the tax revenue can no longer support the benefits. Since politicans will end their turns in ~4 years, they are not hesitate to borrow funding for the benefits. Someone else will pick up the tag later. Look at the PIIGS countries or even the US where there is not hugh surplus of natural resources, unlike Canada or Austrilia."

The above is what I said earlier. But somehow you keep comparing benefits and subsides. I guess you didn't get the point. So give me an example where a dictorship is going bankrupt because it gave out too much benefits.
A dictorship do not have to give favors to win elections because they are already in power.

"is not because they are liberal democracies, is because people vote in programmes they can't afford"
Exactly, that is the problem with the system. Because the Majority rules, but is the Majority always right?, especially for personal benefits?

"But China has those same social programmes in some of their major cities, without even voting for them. If you have a Beijing Hukuo, you get unemployment insurance, health insurance, pensions access to subsidize housing etc. The black market rate for a Beijing Hukuo is US$ 80,000. If everyone in China was to have even 50% of the benefits enjoyed by Beijingers, the state's role in the Chinese's economy would be as high as the US."
Thankyou. This is exactly my point. China is a dictatorship, therefore the govenment can decide who to get these benefits and who don't. It gives what it can still afford and do not bankrupt.

Who do you think is more likely to be a better CEO of car company? a manager who has been with the company for years or someone who has been a boxer all his life?

"The above is what I said earlier. But somehow you keep comparing benefits and subsides. I guess you didn't get the point. So give me an example where a dictorship is going bankrupt because it gave out too much benefits.
A dictorship do not have to give favors to win elections because they are already in power."

Here is a list

1) Egypt (they overthrew Mubarak)
2) Soviet Union (benefits galore)
3) Cuba (its bankrupt)
4) Saudi Arabia (look at absurd amount of subsidies)
5) Malaysia (still a one party state). Government deficit 7-85
7) Iran
8) North Korea (extreme cast, but is not massive military spending an entitlement to the army so they don't launch a coup)

Dictatorship make choice all the time, between repression and handing out goodies. Sometimes handing out goodies is alot easier than repression. The opportunity cost of not giving out the goodies is actually higher in a dictatorship than a democracy. Its like in Syria, if Assad had the money like the Gulf States he could have gave alot of goodies, but unfortunately he did not. So he resorts to oppression.

Sooner or later, migrants in those big cities are going to demand the same benefits as people with Hukuo. Its already happening.

Its a start, once they get that, they will demand more and more. and the CPC will eventually give in.

Governments are built on a narrative. Right wing dictatorships like Lee Kuan Yew have low government spending, because they tell the people to stuff it, the poor are poor, because they are lazy, have bad habit etc. Its very clear what government is supposed to do. The same with Pinochet.

In Communist and left wing dictatorships (like Assad in Syria), they don't say those things, they build up expectations. The CPC has never defined what it can't / won't do. The CPC ideology/philosophy is still Communist/socialist. Why should Beijingers get those benefit, and the migrants don't? There is a disconnect between reality and what the government is saying. It leads to disillusionment and cynicism.

If the CPC did not have to pacify the population as you say, it would remove all those benefits overnight. Why don't they do it? In fact its extending those programmes. Just because its a dictatorship does not mean you can do anything you want?

"Who do you think is more likely to be a better CEO of car company? a manager who has been with the company for years or someone who has been a boxer all his life?"

Who is more likely to better mayor of Shanghai, the CEO of a Car Company or government bureaucrat of 40 years. In a bureaucracy like China you don't really have a choice. Why can't the CEO of a car company be mayor of Shanghai? Its a pretty closed system. In America you have people like Bloomberg as Mayor of New York, Gary Johnson former Governor of New Mexico.

Even in most democracies, political parties select people who they think are good candidates, either through internal voting, selection etc. That is how it works in most parliamentary democracies. The boxer is not automatically dismissed, he can apply. So can a banker. That is how it works in Singapore too, on paper there are more similarities in how it selects its MP with the UK than how China does.

Most established democracies and even new ones like Indonesia its a pretty closed system. You have to join an established party. A boxer suddenly can't become President or even Mayor of a big city.

If China's model was so good, then why don't the Singaporeans copy it, and select all its ministers/MP from the civil service. What does a Doctor know about water resource, why not assign a civil servant?

Why don't you go back to China, instead of staying in democratic Germany with all those benefits.

The Indian thing again. I am not bashing China, I am just pointing out the hypocrisy of most of the Chinese posters here, like you Canabana who actually don't live in China, going on about Liberal Democracy and the welfare state.

The fact is you people should be praising the like of Hong Kong, Taiwan and Singapore, but instead you people praise the Chinese society that resembles the West the most in terms of welfare spending. The fact is China is moving toward the western model of welfare spending, it already has it for some of it's people.

If you have an issue with free press and democracy, OK. But China actually is not much better than the West in terms of social spending, and spend alot more than Taiwan, Singapore or Hong Kong. And most likely it will get higher.

1) Egypt (they overthrew Mubarak)
2) Soviet Union (benefits galore)
3) Cuba (its bankrupt)
4) Saudi Arabia (look at absurd amount of subsidies)
5) Malaysia (still a one party state). Government deficit 7-85
7) Iran
8) North Korea (extreme cast, but is not massive military spending an entitlement to the army so they don't launch a coup)

Sorry, the above list is NOT " where a dictatorship is going bankrupt because it gives out too much benefits" that they couldn't afford.
And Cuba is NOT bankrupted. I was just there few weeks ago. Malaysia is no where near bankrupt neither.

"Sooner or later, migrants in those big cities are going to demand the same benefits as people with Hukuo. Its already happening. Its a start, once they get that, they will demand more and more. and the CPC will eventually give in."
And the Chinese government is NOT allowing the benefits because they know they can't afford them just yet. CPC will give in when "they believe they can afford them". They don't need to offer the benefits to win the ruling because they are already in power. I am repeating myself again.

"Who is more likely to better mayor of Shanghai, the CEO of a Car Company or government bureaucrat of 40 years"
They both could be. One with long bureaucrat experience and one with cooperation management skill, they are definitely better than a boxer.

And they had Sarah Palin as Vice President.

I didn't say China's model is "So Good". I said the system allows on the job training from low to high, which has better chance of getting good experience leaders, the same as a manager working his way up the cooperation ladder.

"I am just pointing out the hypocrisy of most of the Chinese posters here, like you Canabana who actually don't live in China, going on about Liberal Democracy and the welfare state."

No point getting personal, Bismarck. You are not 10 yrs old, are you? The one who is going on about China, Lib. Democracy and welfare state is YOU. I only pointed out the fault of the system and you went googling and wiki for hours.